3 ms·

Why would landlords in the market with the highest demand prioritize fending off competition? The answer is they wouldn’t. You’re full of it. Landlords want to

Why would landlords in the market with the highest demand prioritize fending off competition? The answer is they wouldn’t. You’re full of it. Landlords want to maximize profit from their property and when demand is soaring above supply, adding units is the way to do that so they are organizing to overturn laws that prevent them from doing so. There is a reason the tickets to this event cost $100+. This isn’t a working class movement lol. You are either stupid yourself or you’ve got a lot of nerve to act like others are, which is to say you certainly act like a landlord.

prottog 4y ago
> Landlords want to maximize profit from their property and when demand is soaring above supply, adding units is the way to do that You're saying that as supply catches up to the soaring demand, profits will go up instead of down? There's a lot of name-calling in your post and not a lot of sense.
- bombcar 4y ago
  NIMBY in the streets and YIMBY in the sheets I guess. If I owned a block of single family houses in Frisco I’d want to be able to turn my block to a giant apartment complex at the same time I’d want to prevent anyone else doing a similar thing. Then my profit goes up and isn’t endangered.
  - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
    Precisely.
- deathanatos 4y ago
  > You're saying that as supply catches up to the soaring demand, profits will go up instead of down? I don't think you're wrong on the larger point that landlords are more likely to be on the side of NIMBYism / NIMBYs are going to be land owners. But, to an extent this is possible; the price would drop for the additional supply, but the total of (now_higher_supply * now_lower_price) can still be greater than (original_lower_supply * original_higher_price). Depends on how the market demand responds to the additional supply, and how much additional supply there is. (It can happen the other way, too, where the drop in price outweighs the new profit from the new supply, and total profit drops.) … so it kinda requires an idea of how the additional supply would cause the price to change, beyond what I suspect most landlords have. And a foresight/long-termism that I also don't think exists. And if you're a small time landlord not planning on building additional properties, then your supply is always 1, and if the price does down, obviously then too the product does. And I think in SF, the additional supply that is needed, from a more moral standpoint of "people need to live, commuting is bad for the environment and people's health", is crap tons of additional housing. The price to rent could halve and still be too high.
  - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
    Right. It doesn’t matter if landlords collectively profit because their behaviors are guided by their individual interests, not all the landlords of SF as one. In other words, different landlords with different plans, assets, and resources will act differently. Even if the collective landlords of SF did somehow lose profit from NIMBYism’s rise, some of them will stand to gain a lot and I’d bet on landlords at this NIMBY Prom event standing to gain a lot.

prottog 4y ago

> Landlords want to maximize profit from their property and when demand is soaring above supply, adding units is the way to do that You're saying that as supply catches up to the soaring demand, profits will go up instead of down? There's a lot of name-calling in your post and not a lot of sense.

bombcar 4y ago
NIMBY in the streets and YIMBY in the sheets I guess. If I owned a block of single family houses in Frisco I’d want to be able to turn my block to a giant apartment complex at the same time I’d want to prevent anyone else doing a similar thing. Then my profit goes up and isn’t endangered.
- nopenopenopeno 4y ago
  Precisely.
deathanatos 4y ago
> You're saying that as supply catches up to the soaring demand, profits will go up instead of down? I don't think you're wrong on the larger point that landlords are more likely to be on the side of NIMBYism / NIMBYs are going to be land owners. But, to an extent this is possible; the price would drop for the additional supply, but the total of (now_higher_supply * now_lower_price) can still be greater than (original_lower_supply * original_higher_price). Depends on how the market demand responds to the additional supply, and how much additional supply there is. (It can happen the other way, too, where the drop in price outweighs the new profit from the new supply, and total profit drops.) … so it kinda requires an idea of how the additional supply would cause the price to change, beyond what I suspect most landlords have. And a foresight/long-termism that I also don't think exists. And if you're a small time landlord not planning on building additional properties, then your supply is always 1, and if the price does down, obviously then too the product does. And I think in SF, the additional supply that is needed, from a more moral standpoint of "people need to live, commuting is bad for the environment and people's health", is crap tons of additional housing. The price to rent could halve and still be too high.
- nopenopenopeno 4y ago
  Right. It doesn’t matter if landlords collectively profit because their behaviors are guided by their individual interests, not all the landlords of SF as one. In other words, different landlords with different plans, assets, and resources will act differently. Even if the collective landlords of SF did somehow lose profit from NIMBYism’s rise, some of them will stand to gain a lot and I’d bet on landlords at this NIMBY Prom event standing to gain a lot.